If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That makes sense. No stat is perfect, and I think it's important that people don't rely on a select few. Hopefully things keep evolving. Is this forum ever more active? It seems there are some good minds working in here, but it's slow.

Couldn't find it, or my writings about it here - must have been pre 2010. The guy that wrote it has probably moved on to something he likes better and zapped it.

However I did find this massive doc. 3 minutes of reading says I have to spend a long time parsing this. Enjoy:

Would it make sense to adjust the position values based on the level of play in the league each year. For example when there were a slew of good SS back in the 00s. Tejada, Garciapara, Jeter, and Arod. Plus a bunch of guys who were plying well (good not great) Rentaria, Alex Gonzalez, Eckstein, Valentin, furcal. Shouldn't a SS value go down, because they are easier to replace?

I really think the value should be judged not by replacing them off the minors, But a situation where 0 is average play in the league for that position. This just makes more sense to me... especially if I were thinking about it from a GM position.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

Would it make sense to adjust the position values based on the level of play in the league each year. For example when there were a slew of good SS back in the 00s. Tejada, Garciapara, Jeter, and Arod. Plus a bunch of guys who were plying well (good not great) Rentaria, Alex Gonzalez, Eckstein, Valentin, furcal. Shouldn't a SS value go down, because they are easier to replace?

I really think the value should be judged not by replacing them off the minors, But a situation where 0 is average play in the league for that position. This just makes more sense to me... especially if I were thinking about it from a GM position.

The reason that's not done is because there is already offensive value included in WAR, for one, and UZR already does what you're suggesting to an extent.

Here's what fangraphs says about it:

Traditionally, offensive position adjustments have been popular, which aligns the positions by adjusting on the basis of the difference in offensive runs. However, due to the variability in offensive performance from year to year, that can lead to miscalculations, such as believing that an NL 2B and an NL SS were equal in 2008 because they had the same batting line. Clearly, shortstops are better defenders than second baseman, and we have to reflect this in their value.

^Yet it is unclear between 2B and 3B (for example) who is the better defender. They require different skillsets. And honestly, most people that are too slow for SS go to 3B, and most people who don't have the arm for SS go to 2B. It's almost impossible to say which is harder.

So despite the average 3rd baseman being a much better hitter than the average 2nd baseman, they are even. This makes no sense. I hate to repeat myself, but it is only the obvious distinctions that can be justified between positions.

^Yet it is unclear between 2B and 3B (for example) who is the better defender. They require different skillsets. And honestly, most people that are too slow for SS go to 3B, and most people who don't have the arm for SS go to 2B. It's almost impossible to say which is harder.

So despite the average 3rd baseman being a much better hitter than the average 2nd baseman, they are even. This makes no sense. I hate to repeat myself, but it is only the obvious distinctions that can be justified between positions.

2B take more chances then 3B. They have to play with their back to runners, and handle fancy footwork around 2B. They lack the range to their right and arms of SS's. But have to have more range than 3B.

2B take more chances then 3B. They have to play with their back to runners, and handle fancy footwork around 2B. They lack the range to their right and arms of SS's. But have to have more range than 3B.

The reason that's not done is because there is already offensive value included in WAR, for one, and UZR already does what you're suggesting to an extent.

Here's what fangraphs says about it:

I guess it depends on What you want to measure. If you want to measure something absolute that happened in the past . Player A was X valuable last year then this makes sense. But now that I think about it that is kind of a pointless assessment. This might have use for GM awards but that is about it.

If you want to project out, and compare across years then a yearly positional adjustment doesn't make much sense, because it's not an accurate assessment of future value. **** I wish I had more time to futz with this stuff.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

This may not be the right place to ask this, but if a player, say a shortstop is constantly in better starting position than another teams shortstop simply because his coaching staff is better at putting him in the right position, will his defensive numbers be somewhat flawed?

This may not be the right place to ask this, but if a player, say a shortstop is constantly in better starting position than another teams shortstop simply because his coaching staff is better at putting him in the right position, will his defensive numbers be somewhat flawed?

Been looking into defensive stats more.

As with anything there will be flaws. It is hard to adjust a statistic for something like that, which is why all stats that have a measure of opinion or speculation should be taken with a grain of salt. I prefer to look at what tier a player is in rather than seek out their exact ranking amongst their peers.